HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Post by Tartonga

So what you're saying is that even if a theory may be true, you won't believe in it because it's not able to be proven false. Clever.
Now we understand each other. Take in account that scientific theories use inductive logic. You cannot prove a theory for it being true, you can only disprove it for being false. You seem to think that scientific theories use deductive logic, which you can prove by providing evidence that it's true. However, that's not how theories work, Squish.

From Christianity, you can use the few arbitrary elements: God, the Bible, everything else that the religion upholds. Observations: The universe. What else is there to observe?
So, you observe the universe and that's your observation on the theory that "God exists"? If that's so, I will tell you how your theory works:
-You observe the universe.
-You predict that "God exists" because you observed the universe.
-Later, you observe the universe again.
-Does "God exist"?

Your hypothesis makes no falsifiable prediction. And not that your observations are strong enough either.
Read the Bible, specifically, Revelations. Plenty of definite predictions.
So, by the Bible "God existence" was predicted and you claim that those predictions still happen, because if they don't happen, they are irrelevant. So you could start telling me a definite prediction of "God existence" theory that still happens from the Bible.

False. An unfalsifiable theory can make unfalsifiable predictions.
Ugh...Let's give a bit of thinking to this, shall we? A predicition can have 2 different results: it happened (then the prediction is true, but that doesn't mean the theory is true though) or it didn't happen (the prediction is false and so is the theory). If you can't know if a prediction didn't happen, then you can't predict anything. That's why an unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. Besides if a theory is declared unfalsifiable, it is implied that the prediction is unfalsifiable as well. Secondly, if you can't falsify a theory, you can't know if it may be true or if it's false (Remember? "The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.").

You're making no sense. I said that you can't prove or disprove anything. You're the one making a statement that it's impossible to disprove that God exists, but it's possible to disprove other theories. Prove it.

You sound like you don't know how inductive logic works. Anyway, I'll give you an example so you stop complaining:
1) -I observed a dog, it had 4 legs. I have the theory that "all dogs have 4 legs".
-I predicted "all dogs in the world have 4 legs".
-I observed a dog with 3 legs, 1 leg was cut off.
-My theory was false.

I disproved that theory.

2) -I see an apple falling from a tree repeatedly.
-I predicted "all apples from this tree will fall".
-I observed that all apples fell from the tree.
-My theory is accepted as a truth, because it was not falsified.

However I can make the experiment again on another tree and a squirrel could steal an apple, falsifying my theory.

Post by 355559

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

That still doesn't disprove god. Some instances aren't displayed as the might have really been(tech wasn't exactly potent back then) but there's no saying that the force behind it wasn't real. When people are trying as hard as possible to disprove god things come out like:

Boy kicks a ball
Ball is actually a box.
Boy does not exist.

Try:

Boy kicks a ball.
Ball is actually a box.
Boy kicks a box.

That line of logic is more often used to disprove a biblical God. The point is that if we're told to believe the story, and we find out that some of the story is wrong, why should we believe the rest?

But I'm going to reiterate that there's no reason to disprove God until he has been proved.

Post by Squishalot

Take in account that scientific theories use inductive logic.

That's irrelevant to our discussion - it can be impossible to disprove a scientific theory using inductive logic.

Your hypothesis makes no falsifiable prediction.

Circular argument. You're saying that the hypothesis 'God exists' is unfalsifiable because it makes no falsifable prediction, and it makes no falsifiable prediction because 'God exists' is unfalsifiable. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

And not that your observations are strong enough either.

Strength of observation doesn't preclude a theory from being valid.

So, by the Bible "God existence" was predicted and you claim that those predictions still happen, because if they don't happen, they are irrelevant. So you could start telling me a definite prediction of "God existence" theory that still happens from the Bible.

Not 'was', 'is'. The predictions in Revelations relate to predictions about the future. Have you read it?

Ugh...Let's give a bit of thinking to this, shall we? A predicition can have 2 different results: it happened (then the prediction is true, but that doesn't mean the theory is true though) or it didn't happen (the prediction is false and so is the theory). If you can't know if a prediction didn't happen, then you can't predict anything. That's why an unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions.

There is a theory that the Sun will expand in size and swallow up all the planets up to Mars. Has this happened? No. Did it not happen? No, the prediction is in the future. Does that make it an unfalsifiable theory? Rubbish.

You see, you're missing one key point. A prediction, by definition, can also be in the future. As a result, at any given point in time, a prediction can either a) have happened; b) have not happened; or c) not be activated yet. Christianity makes a number of predictions in Revelations that can definitely be identified as 'happened' or 'didn't happen', once the point in time has passed.

Besides if a theory is declared unfalsifiable, it is implied that the prediction is unfalsifiable as well.

If you're declaring a theory unfalsifiable because its prediction is unfalsifiable, and its prediction is unfalsifiable because the theory is unfalsifiable, you have another circular argument. Again, your argument is invalid.

Secondly, if you can't falsify a theory, you can't know if it may be true or if it's false (Remember? "The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.").

That was the rubbish that you presented, and is not supported by any logic. I theorise that at some point in the future, <X> will happen. Assuming that time is endless, it is impossible to falsify. It may still be true. It should not be accepted as true. Therefore, logically, your argument is invalid.

You sound like you don't know how inductive logic works. Anyway, I'll give you an example so you stop complaining:
1) -I observed a dog, it had 4 legs. I have the theory that "all dogs have 4 legs".
-I predicted "all dogs in the world have 4 legs".
-I observed a dog with 3 legs, 1 leg was cut off.
-My theory was false.

I disproved that theory.

2) -I see an apple falling from a tree repeatedly.
-I predicted "all apples from this tree will fall".
-I observed that all apples fell from the tree.
-My theory is accepted as a truth, because it was not falsified.

However I can make the experiment again on another tree and a squirrel could steal an apple, falsifying my theory.

Your argument has nothing to do with what I said. You argued that 'God exists' is unfalsifiable. Your conclusion that it's unfalsifiable must be provable. Again, prove it, using inductive logic or otherwise.

But I'm going to reiterate that there's no reason to disprove God until he has been proved.

"No reason to disprove God until he has been proved" - if he's been proved, then how is it possible to disprove him? *raises eyebrow*

Post by Pwntiff

Two words: Babel Fish.

Post by Squishalot

Lawl.

Post by Tartonga

That's irrelevant to our discussion - it can be impossible to disprove a scientific theory using inductive logic.
Irrelevant? You were the one who said "So what you're saying is that even if something is true, you won't believe in it because it's not able to be proven false. Clever." That is irrelevant to our discussion since we are talking about inductive logic and you about deductive logic.

Circular argument. You're saying that the hypothesis 'God exists' is unfalsifiable because it makes no falsifable prediction, and it makes no falsifiable prediction because 'God exists' is unfalsifiable. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
So, are you implying that an unfalsifiable theory can have a falsifiable prediction? If your argument doesn't imply that, then I'm afraid to tell you it doesn't imply anything else. Besides, circular arguments can be true, despite not being valid as an argument, depending on the truth from the premises.

Strength of observation doesn't preclude a theory from being valid.
So, you are implying that any observation could fit any theory and make it valid. That's flawed.

Not 'was', 'is'. The predictions in Revelations relate to predictions about the future. Have you read it?
Of course I haven't read it. Have you read about Inductivism? I guess it's a no for both questions.

There is a theory that the Sun will expand in size and swallow up all the planets up to Mars. Has this happened? No. Did it not happen? No, the prediction is in the future. Does that make it an unfalsifiable theory? Rubbish.
That is a falsifiable theory, because you could be able to see if it happens or not in roughly 5 billions years (as the prediction says). In other words, it's falsifiable. That doesn't prove "God exists" is falsifiable as well.
You see, you're missing one key point. A prediction, by definition, can also be in the future. As a result, at any given point in time, a prediction can either a) have happened; b) have not happened; or c) not be activated yet. Christianity makes a number of predictions in Revelations that can definitely be identified as 'happened' or 'didn't happen', once the point in time has passed.
I didn't miss anything. A prediction "not activated yet" is a prediction that didn't happen. The time gap is defined by the theory. The theory about the sun you were talking about concluded that it will happen in roughly 5 billion years. I don't know when did religion predict that "God exists". According to you, God does not exist but the predictions say he will exist, or what? You should clarify what the predictions say based on what observations.

If you're declaring a theory unfalsifiable because its prediction is unfalsifiable, and its prediction is unfalsifiable because the theory is unfalsifiable, you have another circular argument. Again, your argument is invalid.
Again, are you implying that an unfalsifiable theory can have a falsifiable prediction? If your argument doesn't imply that, then I'm afraid to tell you it doesn't imply anything else. Besides, circular arguments can be true, despite not being valid as an argument, depending on the truth from the premises.
That was the rubbish that you presented, and is not supported by any logic. I theorise that at some point in the future, <X> will happen. Assuming that time is endless, it is impossible to falsify. It may still be true. It should not be accepted as true. Therefore, logically, your argument is invalid.
So, you are implying that God doesn't exist, but he will exist at some point in the future. If you are religious, you are doing it wrong. The theory is in the present: Does God exist? The time is now. You are the one talking rubbish. It's unfalsifiable, because we can't falsify if he does exist.

Your argument has nothing to do with what I said. You argued that 'God exists' is unfalsifiable. Your conclusion that it's unfalsifiable must be provable. Again, prove it, using inductive logic or otherwise.

I will prove it when you prove it's falsifiable.

Post by xaratherus

Two words: Babel Fish.

Careful, or you'll get killed at the next zebra crossing.

Post by Pwntiff

Two words: Babel Fish.

Careful, or you'll get killed at the next zebra crossing.

We don't have any in the states, I win!

Post by chaosultimamage

All this talk of falsifiable and unfalsifiable theories is making my brain hurt. I might have to stop reading this.

Post by Tartonga

Post by chaosultimamage

All this talk of falsifiable and unfalsifiable theories is making my brain hurt. I might have to stop reading this.

You have to resist, pal! This is the argument you will have to use next time some unknown religious mob knocks your door and gives you free Bibles.

I just answer the door wearing one of my band shirts and tell them I'm not interested and they generally leave me alone.

Post by xaratherus

All this talk of falsifiable and unfalsifiable theories is making my brain hurt. I might have to stop reading this.

You have to resist, pal! This is the argument you will have to use next time some unknown religious mob knocks your door and gives you free Bibles.

I just have my transvestite roommate answer the door while wearing lingerie.

Post by Pwntiff

There is no point in arguing with religious people. You can usually have interesting and civil discussions, but only when both parties are interested in learning more, rather than attempting to prove the other side wrong.

Post by Lombax

I've asked religious people why they believe in something I find abstract, answer I got from one of them? The more IQ you have the more you can believe.......

I probably won't bother with them after that.

Post by Pwntiff

Key phrase: "only when both parties are interested"

When you start explaining your beliefs, you start learning things about yourself, and some people look to religion so they don't have to be introspective. Sad, but true.

Post by ExDementia

I just have my transvestite roommate answer the door while wearing lingerie.

"God works in mysterious ways..."

Post by 825404

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

But I'm going to reiterate that there's no reason to disprove God until he has been proved.

"No reason to disprove God until he has been proved" - if he's been proved, then how is it possible to disprove him? *raises eyebrow*

If prove meant to demonstrate with such a supply of evidence that it is literally impossible to see any other scenario, which I believe in itself to be impossible, then the very word 'disprove' is an impossibility. Right now you're asking me to prove God does not exist, I am not required to prove a negative. Only after you've proved he existed is there any reason for me to refute this proof.

Essentially, asking me to disprove God exists before you've proved he exists is asking me to disassemble a puzzle that was never put together in the first place.

Post by Squishalot

So, you are implying that any observation could fit any theory and make it valid. That's flawed.

It's not flawed, it's a statement of fact. If an observation fits a theory, that is evidence towards the theory. Just because you don't like the theory doesn't make it any less of a theory.

Of course I haven't read it. Have you read about Inductivism? I guess it's a no for both questions.

Firstly, 'inductivism' isn't a real word in the sense that it's not a way of thinking, it's a scientific method. Secondly, I understand induction very well. Thirdly, you obviously don't, if you think that anything is can be proven true or proven false by induction.

That is a falsifiable theory, because you could be able to see if it happens or not in roughly 5 billions years (as the prediction says). In other words, it's falsifiable. That doesn't prove "God exists" is falsifiable as well.

I didn't miss anything. A prediction "not activated yet" is a prediction that didn't happen. The time gap is defined by the theory. The theory about the sun you were talking about concluded that it will happen in roughly 5 billion years. I don't know when did religion predict that "God exists". According to you, God does not exist but the predictions say he will exist, or what? You should clarify what the predictions say based on what observations.

If you're not going to read what the predictions say (i.e. Revelations), I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you. Go do your own research. Proof by ignorance is not a valid argument.

So, are you implying that an unfalsifiable theory can have a falsifiable prediction? If your argument doesn't imply that, then I'm afraid to tell you it doesn't imply anything else. Besides, circular arguments can be true, despite not being valid as an argument, depending on the truth from the premises.

No, I'm saying that your argument is invalid and therefore doesn't bear responding to. If you think it has truth, provide your argument in a valid form.

So, you are implying that God doesn't exist, but he will exist at some point in the future. If you are religious, you are doing it wrong. The theory is in the present: Does God exist? The time is now. You are the one talking rubbish. It's unfalsifiable, because we can't falsify if he does exist.

You cannot prove that we will not be able to identify God's existence in the future. Therefore, your argument is false.

I will prove it when you prove it's falsifiable.

I'll even prove it using an induction example, since you seem so fond of it.

Premise: God existence is unfalsifiable.
Observation: Tartonga has provided no evidence of unfalisifability.
Conclusion: We cannot conclude that God is unfalsifiable. In view of the lack of evidence, it is prudent to assume that God existence, like everything else, is falisfiable.

If prove meant to demonstrate with such a supply of evidence that it is literally impossible to see any other scenario, which I believe in itself to be impossible, then the very word 'disprove' is an impossibility. Right now you're asking me to prove God does not exist, I am not required to prove a negative. Only after you've proved he existed is there any reason for me to refute this proof.

Essentially, asking me to disprove God exists before you've proved he exists is asking me to disassemble a puzzle that was never put together in the first place.

Wait, so by what definition of 'proof' did you want?

HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Post Reply